This study compares conventional impression and cast fabrication to direct/indirect digital scannig and 3D printed casts regarding their accuracy in replicating the peri-implant emergence profile of single implants in the maxillary anterior region (FDI #15-25).

Correct design of the peri-implant emergence profile (EP) is crucial for maintaining the health of the supracrestal complex and long-term success of the implant implant-prosthodontics. After its formation with a provisional restoration, its shape needs to be transferred to the final restoration via conventional elastomeric or digital (direct/indirect) impression taking.

Our aims are to investigate around maxillary anterior single implants in patients with thick gingival phenotype:

1. the accuracy of direct digital impression vs indirect digital impression vs conventional elastomeric impression in capturing the EP and implant position
2. the accuracy of 3D printed cast with conventional gingival mask vs conventional epoxy-resin cast with gingival mask in replicating the EP and implant position
3. the amount of soft tissue collapse at 0,2,10,20 minutes following the removal of the provisional restoration in case of direct EP scanning

Inclusion Criteria:

• Adult above 18 yo
• No systematic deseases
• Good oral hygene (FMPS < 25%)
• Stable occlusion
• Thick phenotype
• Single missing maxilary anterior (FDI #15-25 position) tooth replaced with osseointegrated bone level impant
• Correctly formed soft tissue with CAD/CAM temporary abutment for min. 3 months
• Neighbouring teeth in place and in good condition
• Patient voluntarily accepts and signs the patient leaflets for the trial

Exclusion Criteria:

• Active periodontitis
• Peri-implant inflammation